<p>fabulous,
That's exactly my point. How could we give an answer to such a question as completely subjective as that? If we did it would be making a generalization.</p>
<p>If you read summaries of visits to colleges, you can notice some where the student population as a whole came off as pretentious (see OP), although I'm sure that there are nice, down-to-earth individuals at any school. Maybe look around in the forums of individual colleges you might be interested in.</p>
<p>many small,community-oriented liberal arts colleges who aren't obsessed with statues have a fair majority of down-to-earth students. Try Reed, Whitman, Pitzer on the west coast (don't know much about the east coast.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's exactly my point. How could we give an answer to such a question as completely subjective as that? If we did it would be making a generalization.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are misundersanding the subjective/objective distinction; however, yes you would be making a generalization, though it is not because the claim is subjective.</p>
<p>Nspeds,
You're not clear in what you're saying. A person asking others to judge whether they THINK an ENTIRE student body has a certain trait, is not subjective to who's doing the judging?</p>
<p>
[quote]
A person asking others to judge whether they THINK an ENTIRE student body has a certain trait, is not subjective to who's doing the judging?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then by reductio everything is subjective; and surely you do not mean to say that, since that statement purports to be objective, and is thus self-defeating.</p>
<p>I'm sure you think you make an excellent point, but i highly doubt anyone cares(including me).</p>
<p>JUST STOP! Okay? Cool it. Half a second after I posted I realized how idiotic my question was. It's a dumbass question, so don't even waste your time replying.</p>
<p>Tangerine,
It would actually be nice for prospectives to know the answers to such questions. The problem with the question is obtaining a reliable answer.</p>
<p>This is kind of like the pretty student question. </p>
<p>I know a lot of people at UC Berkeley who are really down-to earth, so there's one.</p>
<p>I think it would be easier to answer the opposite question--which college has the most pretentious people. XD But that would probably be offensive.</p>
<p>...and I just read tangerine_soup's last post, but since I've already typed out all this crap I may as well post it. :D</p>
<p>uvajoe, I care, but you probably don't care about that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but i highly doubt anyone cares(including me).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then your posts will continue to be subpar. If you cannot propound a logically consistent argument, it belongs in the veritable basket of **<strong><em>. Not just any *</em></strong>*, but the Frankfurtian kind!</p>
<p>Not that, nspeds. There is more to life than truth, and the most banal argument against rhetoric is their lack of concern for truth. Try saying anything without rhetoric . . . oh, can't do it? Perhaps that's because the way you say things is not onlly tied to what you're saying, but it IS what you are saying.</p>
<p>Nspeds,</p>
<p>The big difference in your posts and mine:
Your posts may be "correct" yet are still useless. Mine on the other hand tend to have some practicality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mine on the other hand tend to have some practicality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a very presumptious thing to say: it is a matter of opinion, and you can be sure that I disagree. You also cannot speak for others. DRab found my post useful, and perhaps moreso than anything you are capable of posting.</p>
<p>God, you're an idiot.</p>
<p>What strange apostrophe.</p>
<p>Why is it strange?</p>
<p>Cornellis down to earth</p>
<p>You address God out of nowhere. Anyway, back to the topic? :)</p>